ChatterBank2 mins ago
Poor Peter Robinson
Is it fair that Peter Robinson should be 'hounded out of his job by the media'?
So he's married to a homophobic woman who looks scarily like Celine Dion and sleeps with men young enough to be her grandson.
That's not HIS fault is it?
Also, I don't understand why her raising £50,000 for her toyboy is a financial scandal. Can someone explain exactly what she did wrong (apart from the adultery bit)?
So he's married to a homophobic woman who looks scarily like Celine Dion and sleeps with men young enough to be her grandson.
That's not HIS fault is it?
Also, I don't understand why her raising £50,000 for her toyboy is a financial scandal. Can someone explain exactly what she did wrong (apart from the adultery bit)?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sp....the £50,000 was raised from 2 "friends?" which was used to set the boyfriend up in a restaurant on an estate which needed planning permission and it just happened that "our Iris" was the Chair of that planning committee........nothing illegal but perhaps a "conflict of interest?"
Homophobic........that's her right, cannot see the problem.
Many lovers including a toy boy..........so?..........what's the problem?
Husband didn't know, so why should he be sacked?
Homophobic........that's her right, cannot see the problem.
Many lovers including a toy boy..........so?..........what's the problem?
Husband didn't know, so why should he be sacked?
jackthehat
I see what you mean about the conflict of interested. That certainly sounds dodgy.
But don't the calls for his resignation presuppose he knew about the transactions?
I mean, if he didn't know about her affair(s) - there are now claims that there were a couple of others, there's a chance he didn't know about her dodgy deals?
Re: homophobia - that thing she said about homosexuality being "worse than child rape", and then advising a chap on a radio phone-in who'd been gay-bashed that he should seek professional help from a therapist to 'go straight' could be seen as a bit of a political own goal by most people's standards.
I see what you mean about the conflict of interested. That certainly sounds dodgy.
But don't the calls for his resignation presuppose he knew about the transactions?
I mean, if he didn't know about her affair(s) - there are now claims that there were a couple of others, there's a chance he didn't know about her dodgy deals?
Re: homophobia - that thing she said about homosexuality being "worse than child rape", and then advising a chap on a radio phone-in who'd been gay-bashed that he should seek professional help from a therapist to 'go straight' could be seen as a bit of a political own goal by most people's standards.
As far as I can see the only offence he is guilty of is the fact that he knew about his wife obtaining £50,000 from two wealthy developers, and he failed to declare the cash.
His wife on the other hand is not only guilty of adultery but also guilty of extreme hypocrisy.
She took the moral high-ground on most of what she herself was guilty of. She also announced her disgust at homosexuality, which in itself is not a crime, but not quite PC.
His wife on the other hand is not only guilty of adultery but also guilty of extreme hypocrisy.
She took the moral high-ground on most of what she herself was guilty of. She also announced her disgust at homosexuality, which in itself is not a crime, but not quite PC.
She's obviously dead in the water.
The issue for him is going to be whether he can hold the line that he didn't know about his wife's dealings. It's the usual thing - the need of the opponents to demonstrate evidence he did know - even though most of us will have raised eyebrows and won't believe him. Not guilty until proven so. Tony was a master at this technique of ensuring there is no evidence to link to the facts.
The issue for him is going to be whether he can hold the line that he didn't know about his wife's dealings. It's the usual thing - the need of the opponents to demonstrate evidence he did know - even though most of us will have raised eyebrows and won't believe him. Not guilty until proven so. Tony was a master at this technique of ensuring there is no evidence to link to the facts.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
What sone commentators in Ireland are saying is that the homophobic comments coupled with her affair with a teenager discredits her, and makes her a hypocrite. However, I don't think that should disbar her from public office. If we got rid of all hypocritical public servants, the unemployment figures would double overnight.
-- answer removed --
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.